Wood on Words: Yes, friends, we’re all Americans

It never fails. The day after I submitted last week’s column about receiving no readers’ takes on the American dream, I got two of them — one by e-mail and one by regular mail.

Barry Wood

It never fails. The day after I submitted last week’s column about receiving no readers’ takes on the American dream, I got two of them — one by e-mail and one by regular mail.

Since then two more have arrived. I will share some with you in the March 8 column, so there’s still time to join in. Send e-mail to the address at the end of this column by 5 p.m. Wednesday, and regular mail to Wood on Words, Rockford Register Star, 99 E. State St., Rockford, IL 61104, also to arrive by Wednesday.

Let me just make it clear that by “American” I mean “of, in or characteristic of the U.S. or its people or culture.”

The same day those first submissions arrived, my boss took a telephone call from a reader complaining about a phrase in that day’s newspaper referring to Canada as “America’s northern neighbor.” I’ve heard this complaint before, and even commented on it, but it’s probably worth addressing again.

Yes, it’s true that nearly everyone living in the Western Hemisphere can be considered an American — North American, Central American or South American.

And yes, it can seem arrogant that we in the United States have acted as if we have exclusive ownership of the word, and right from the beginning, too. In 1776, the Declaration of
Independence was issued as a proclamation by “the thirteen United States of America.”

The simple fact is that although others on our side of the globe could call themselves
Americans, no one seems to want to. Most people naturally choose terms of national identification rather than continental or hemispheric.

Canadians are North Americans, but do they want to call themselves that — or be known as “Americans”? (Of course, some of them probably are.)

Another factor in this linguistic mix is that there’s no other national term for people in the United States. “United Staters” or some variation doesn’t seem to stand much chance of catching on.

“Yankees” and “Yanks” have been used in some times and places, but they’re associated mostly with New England or the North during the Civil War — hardly ideal candidates for national affiliation.

Which brings me to another of those “founding nouns” in the Preamble to the Constitution: “union.”

The notion that the states are “united,” or ever have been, is open to debate, at least in the sense of “in agreement or harmony.”

However, the Constitution’s use of “union” is clearly in the sense of “a combining, joining or grouping together ... for some specific purpose.”

During the Civil War, “the Union” referred to those states that remained in the fold, although the states that seceded certainly were united in their cause as well.

Nowadays, “union” most commonly refers to a labor organization or a relationship between two people.

And what gives with the Preamble’s “more perfect Union”? Isn’t “perfect,” like “unique,” an absolute? If something is perfect, by definition it can’t be improved upon.

Defenders of this usage say that it’s an acceptable colloquialism for “more nearly perfect.”

In a perfect world, another expression might have worked better. But I think our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.

Contact Barry Wood at bwood@rrstar.com or read his blog at blogs.e-rockford.com/woodonwords/.